NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?

Cardman ) wrote:
: On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:39:41 GMT, "Ray" wrote:

: According to NASA's website, they are committed to setting up a colony
: on the moon, but many people here don't believe them.

: The odds of NASA aiming to make a colony is indeed quite slim. As a
: "colony", by my definition, is a self-sustaining base where you do not
: aim to bring the people back.

Or keep them under your foot or tax them to death...

: The only way to look at this is what will happen once NASA removes
: their Moon funding, when they move on to Mars no doubt. Their ISS on
: the Moon would soon close, but a real colony would live on.

And that would have to be done without constant government funds.

: Since it would be of benefit to have services, like construction, on
: the Moon at many points in the future, then working on building a
: colony is the only goal that there should be.

: The future on the Moon is under the ground. NASA won't be in the
: colony business until they build their first tunnel.

Or discover their first pool of water.

: To be honest then NASA seems more Flags and Footprints. So this Moon
: project is just an unfortunate step so that they can one day do their
: Flags and Footprints thing on Mars.

: So at the end of all this you will have what?

Done it! And sometimes that IS what it is all about. I'm pretty sure NASA
wants to stumble upon something that would turn lunar exploration into
lunar exploitation. At least they SHOULD want return trips to spawn some
sort of industry. Just because that didn't happen for Apollo doesn't mean
that it won't happen this time.

Eric

: Cardman.

B1ackwater wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 20:40:08 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
(B1ackwater) wrote:

We NEED to find accessible water and/or hydrated minerals
in fairly large quantities. The whole colonization effort
hinges on this. ...
If little or no water is found then the moon is only fit for
robots unless we try something exotic like catching and crashing
comets into the polar regions.

I disagree. You can have a viable moon base (and eventually, colony)
while importing hydrogen. Lots of very successful places import large
amounts of vital substances (look at the U.S. and, say, oil). Moreover,
the hydrogen needed for things like growing food and drinking can be
almost completely recycled in a closed-loop system; it doesn't have to
be a consumable. So to a first approximation, you only need to import
more as the colony grows.

I disagree with your disagreement. The COST of sending hydrogen
(preferably in the form on water) from earth to the moon would
be absolutely ridiculous if we're talking any noteworthy
quantities at all. The moon colony would have to be a tremendous
money-maker to offset that - and so far I don't see what they'd
have to sell that is all THAT valuable. Yes, most of the H2O
can be recycled (minus a little leakage) so a constant supply
of FRESH water wouldn't be required, but STILL ...


Besides, it seems silly to colonize the Moon when we haven't finished
colonizing Iraq.

B1ackwater;
NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?
This is an extremely nice topic and damn good set of questions,
especially since we're nearly bankrupt. However, since "NASA formally
unveils lunar exploration architecture", then perhaps we village idiots
can seriously discuss those potentially lethal physical impacts,
thermal issues, radioactive, reactive and atmospheric environment about
our moon that really summarily sucks worse off than our resident
warlord(GW Bush), especially by day unless you're one hell of a robot
that at most couldn't cost us 1% that of any manned expedition, and not
0=2E1% if there's no return ticket to ride.

It seems the status quo is entirely taboo/nondisclosure yet somehow
that's perfectly fine and dandy for the likes of wizard "David
Knisely", whereas otherwise life involving the regular laws of physics
and hard-science that's the least bit outside the box is where pesky
morals or so much as having a stitch of remorse sucks because;
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.a...rm/thread/312=
c0ee1964db812/85e2050d1b0c9a78?rnum=3D11&hl=3Den&q=3Dbrad+guth&_ done=3D%2Fg=
roup%2Fsci.astro.amateur%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F3 12c0ee1964db812%2F8ee6a5d=
795a6cc43%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3Dbrad+guth%26rnum%3D7%26 hl%3Den%26#doc_abc3dca90e=
b703fc
There are some posters out there
who feel the need to formulate
their own elaborate theories
about the heavens and their fate.
And otherwise lord/rusemaster David Knisely having contributed yet
another very nicely worded mainstream status quo rant, which is exactly
why such all-knowing folks as Knisely are not likely going to
contribute an honest need-to-know squat upon this next related
sub-topic as to the lunar atmosphere and subsequent environment.

The temperature on moon surface is what I believe can become moderated
to suit, at least on behalf of greatly improving the odds on behalf of
robotics that can be robust and thus engineered so as to not care about
their local thermal or radioactive background dosage environment nor of
whatever's incoming that's producing all of that truly nasty
secondary/recoil worth of hard-X-rays. However, with having such a
crystal clear layer of Radon plus another extended layer of Argon
should create quit a well insulated surface baking environment that's
capable of getting a damn site hotter than the sort of hell reported by
our cloak and dagger MI6/NSA~NASA Apollo spooks.

In spite of all the brown-nosed minions of their mainstream status quo
that thinks and/or keeps insisting at we village idiots should only
think that we've already done that and been there, thus why all of
their need-to-know and/or taboo/nondisclosure that sucks and blows at
the same time, which only seems rather out of proper form, especially
when it appears that building/terraforming an artificial lunar
atmosphere for robotics has been doable without our ever risking so
much as one TBI white hair upon another astronaut:

Not that I'm insisting this as the one and only alternative, however
for further sportmanship reasons I'm thinking that the likes of Radon
gas should become liquid at night and, otherwise expand out to perhaps
an atmospheric depth of a km by day. Topped off by mostly argon that
might reach as far as 50 km by day and something less than 10 km by
nighttime/earthshine.

According to Mike Williams;
"The strength of the surface gravity (1.623 m/s/s) isn't the critical
factor. What's more significant is the escape velocity (Moon 2.38km/s,
Titan 2.65km/s)."

"The heavier gas sticks around but the useful gas escapes. The various
types of molecules settle down to having the same average kinetic
energy,
but that means that the lighter molecules move faster than the heavier
ones. They move just as fast, in fact, as if the heavier molecules were

not present."

"There's a piece of JavaScript on this page
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/kintem.html#c4
that will calculate the average molecular speed given the molecular
mass
and temperature. N2 molecules (m=3D28) on Titan (T=3D-197C) average 260m/s
which is about a tenth of the escape velocity. CO2 molecules (m=3D28) on
the Moon (daytime T=3D107C) average 464m/s which is about a fifth of the
escape velocity. That might sound OK, but not all molecules travel at
the average velocity, some travel faster and leak away. The Earth isn't
able to hold on to hydrogen molecules, and they average about a fifth
of
Earth's escape velocity."

"Radon atoms would travel at an average of 206m/s on the Moon, which
suggests that you could build an atmosphere of pure Radon."

Density of dry ice: anywhere from 1.2 to 1.6 kg/dm=B3 depends upon
compactness (avg 1.5 g/cm3)
Frozen solid form at -78.5=B0 C
Sublimes at anything much hoter than -78=B0C
In a snowball form of compactness upon the moon it may represent less
than 1 g/cm3.

Radon, Rn atomic number: 86
Atomic mass: [222] gmol-1(no stable nuclide)
Isotope: 222Rn (222.017570)
Specific gravity of the liquid state is 4.4 g/cm3 at -62=B0C, and SG of
the solid state becomes 4 g/cm3, thus 4 tonnes/m3 if frozen solid and
especially frozen solid if that Rn were sequestered by the likes of
frozen CO2 at 1.5 g/mm3.

A cubic meter of each substance, that which Earth needs to get rid of
anyway, represents a composite sphere of 5.5~5.9 tonnes, and that's not
actually all that large of diameter of what can be easily directed at
impacting (not orbiting) the moon. From the zero-G vantage point of
such being accelerated from the nullification zone of roughly 60,000 km
away from the moon gives an hour, in that there's an unobstructed path
of least resistance that'll also benefit from the 1.623 m/s/s worth of
gravity, whereas this should not require all that much added thrust
energy for getting the final velocity up to good speed of final impact
becoming worth at least 30 km/s (9 fold better KE bang/kg than DEEP
IMPACT), although what's stopping us from achieving 60+km/s?.

Our moon is already fairly radioactive by several fold greater than
Earth, thus another clue that our moon is actually that of an icy
proto-moon as having arrived instead of being ejected out of Earth,
that plus the much having lesser density makes a whole lot more sense
than any spendy computer model that's keeping the likes of a Pope and
other terrestrial or but religions as happy campers.

Of course, my lunar terraforming notions of artificially bombing the
holy crap out of our moon with the likes of large blocks or spheres of
dry-ice having frozen Rn within, besides creating whatever horrific
meteor like impacts worth of vaporising lunar basalt into capably
releasing a ratio of 1e6:1 worth of O2, the very nature of the
delivered CO2 might subsequently revert to just good old elements of
co/o2 or perhaps react into just C and O2, whereas the Radon element
should have vanished within a few days unless we'd replaced and/or
supplemented that lunar bombing of frozen Rn with the likes of
including Ra226 which might even react quite nicely with the already
available He3 into making a nifty long-term supply of creating Rn.
After the Ra226 is sufficiently depleted, say in 6400 years it should
be at 1/16th of it's initial potency, and by then having established a
good amount of terraformed atmosphere as becoming the case since the
amount of continual Radon-222 would have extensively moderated the
hot/cold of the lunar day/night differential to something quite
manageable for the likes of holding onto O2, whereas by then there
shouldn't be hardly any significant local radioactive threat for naked
humans that could be safely accommodated for 60 earthshine days upon
the surface of our moon, that which a reasonably engineered moonsuit
couldn't manage, or at least sufficient as for accommodating the likes
of whomever we don't want living here on Earth (I have a growing list
of whom those folks should be, roughly the bulk of the upper 0.1% of
humanity that have been pillaging and raping mother Earth while
continually snookering the lower 99.9% of humanity, and I do believe
there should be plenty of available space on and/or within the moon for
accommodating each and every one of those 15e6 folks in spite of all
the deployed Ra226 that upon average shouldn't have modified the
already background radioactive terrain by more than 10%).

According to the above "Molecular Speed Calculation" of Argon-40, even
if the elevated average altitude represented at worst 100=B0C (373K)
would give Argon the maximum RMS velocity of 482.4 m/s which obviously
should stick around. Even that of O2-32 only jumps to an RMS velocity
of 539 m/s which should also stay put at least up until a truly nasty
solar wind of 1200~2400 km/s excavates such lighter mass elements away.

So, you tell me why artificially bombing our moon, and especially with
the sorts of nasty stuff that Earth is getting more and more desperate
to get rid of isn't such a good idea.
So stick to just the cold hard facts
and do not engage these fools.
As time goes on, they should then fade
and prove that knowledge rules!
- D. Knisely
Obviously this nifty rant closing was speaking on behalf of warning us
about himself, as for our not bothering to engage such mainstream
rusemasters because, doing so will only bring us MOS LLPOF infomercials
and thus wasting human talents, resources of expertise and energy as
well as sustaining collateral damage and continued carnage of the
innocent.

BTW; just because certain folks fade is more than likely because
they're too smart to waste valuable time and resources upon the lost
cause of humanity that's ruled by and thereby performing as brown-nosed
minions to the upper most 0.1%, of which the likes of lord D. Knisely
is apparently even somewhat above that.
~

Life upon Venus, a township w/Bridge & ET/UFO Park-n-Ride Tarmac:
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm
The Russian/China LSE-CM/ISS (Lunar Space Elevator)
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm
Venus ETs, plus the updated sub-topics; Brad Guth / GASA-IEIS
http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-topics.htm
War is war, thus "in war there are no rules" - In fact, war has been
the very reason of having to deal with the likes of others that haven't
been playing by whatever rules, such as GW Bush.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:26:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Eric Chomko) wrote:

AlienGreenspawn ) wrote:
: On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:23:39 -0400, The_Bob
: wrote:

: B1ackwater wrote:
:
: OK - the question is "WHY ?". A few people for a few days at
: a time ... it's just not worth doing (except to enrich certain
: aerospace companies).
:
: The answer is chrome plating it, of course, that way when we finish
: paving the earth the shine off of it at night will allow us to eliminate
: street light posts, which cause accidents.

: Ah ... but they're invaluable as a physical support
: mechanism for drunks !

Are you kidding? Here in the US drunks allow themselves to be propped up
by their cars while they fumble around for their keys.

They weren't so much of a problem before the traffic
density got so high.

MADD and all their wisdom don't have enough clout to take on the
oil/auto industries with their political backers in a manner to change the
public transportation systems of the US one iota.

I'm sorry to say that the US public transportation system is Second World,
but that is by design.

The urban geography of most US cities an suburbs is oriented
around using SPACE. This means that it's generally a long way
from wherever you are to wherever you need to go. Most old
european cities, built-up pre-automobile, are much more compact.
Not here. Since we are not going to tear down all our cities
are start over, we're kind-of STUCK with the status-quo.

This makes the private automobile a necessity. Public transport
generally won't get you close enough to where you need to go -
at least not without changing busses five or ten times. You
need to go twenty miles to work, five miles to the market, three
miles to other stores, five miles to school, to take kid #1 to
baseball practice ten miles south, kid #2 to soccer practice
five miles west and the dog to the vet six miles north. Then
you have to collect everyone again in a few hours. Sleep, and
repeat the next day. Public transport ? Forget it !

On 21 Sep 2005 00:07:40 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


Brian Thorn wrote:
On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

Well, over 200% more. (2x crew, 2.25x stay time.)

Besides, how do you measure productivity if there's no defined outcome?

What you do with the time is a irrelevant, but the ESAS moon program
should provide 200% more surface time than Apollo. How's that?

If the base sites are all near each other (e.g. South Pole) one mission
lasting about 6 weeks could explore them all. The NASA architecture
doesn't even enable this (though I suspect the new rover will be SUV
derived).

Once you have a base on the Moon, it would open up exploration of the
entire surface at your leisure. A specialized version of the Lander
could be used to "hop" anywhere else on the moon and come back...
essentially Apollo missions which start and end at the Base. Fuel for
the hopper could be landed by cargoless versions of the Earth
Departure Stage or Tanker versions of the Lander, if not manufactured
in-situ.

Brian

On 21 Sep 2005 14:46:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric da Red"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Besides, it seems silly to colonize the Moon when we haven't finished
colonizing Iraq.

I think you misspelled "preventing Saudi Arabia from colonizing Iraq."

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 21 Sep 2005 14:46:54 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Eric da Red"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Besides, it seems silly to colonize the Moon when we haven't finished
colonizing Iraq.


I think you misspelled "preventing Saudi Arabia from colonizing Iraq."

Saudi Arabia wasn't trying to colonize Iraq before Yankees went in.
And they haven't been trying since either even if a few Saudis
have been trying to overthrow the Iraqi government.

I don't understand what it is you are trying to say here.


Alain Fournier

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Ray wrote:

According to NASA's website, they are committed to setting up a colony
on the moon, but many people here don't believe them.

We're not fools, Ray. We remember things they said that didn't
come true, and that they knew wouldn't come true.

Moreover, we recognize the enormous gulf between what they actually
are planning to do, and the establishment of a colony.

What, aside from wishful thinking, makes you believe them?

Paul
Everyone is looking for minerals held in the asteroid belt estimated to
worth trillions.

Already there are legal claims by corporate lawyers to claims
asteroids. A moon base, space base, and other extra terrestial homes
will all be steps to make a space in the solar system more viable for
mining, and also issues like prisons, housing the poor will be factors.


A lonely moon like Titan could be a good place to send poorer people or
criminals.

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005 00:07:40 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


Once you have a base on the Moon, it would open up exploration of the
entire surface at your leisure. A specialized version of the Lander
could be used to "hop" anywhere else on the moon and come back...
essentially Apollo missions which start and end at the Base. Fuel for
the hopper could be landed by cargoless versions of the Earth
Departure Stage or Tanker versions of the Lander, if not manufactured
in-situ.


Also a nice starting place to build missiles.


Brian

"Logician" wrote in message
oups.com...

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005 00:07:40 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


Once you have a base on the Moon, it would open up exploration of the
entire surface at your leisure. A specialized version of the Lander
could be used to "hop" anywhere else on the moon and come back...
essentially Apollo missions which start and end at the Base. Fuel for
the hopper could be landed by cargoless versions of the Earth
Departure Stage or Tanker versions of the Lander, if not manufactured
in-situ.


Also a nice starting place to build missiles.


No, it's not.

Build them on Earth and put them in stealth orbits, just like we always
have. Why change what works?